IBM Analytics Engine vs Spark SQL comparison

IBM and Apache are both solutions in the Hadoop category. IBM is ranked #8, while Apache is ranked #5 with an average rating of 8.0. IBM holds a 3.1% mindshare in H, compared to Apache’s 6.1% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of IBM users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 86% of Apache users who would recommend it.

IBM Analytics Engine

Read 1 IBM Analytics Engine review

212 Views
201 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

Spark SQL

Read 15 Spark SQL reviews

674 Views
600 Comparison Views

86% willing to recommend

IBM Analytics Engine

Spark SQL

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive Summary

We performed a comparison between IBM Analytics Engine and Spark SQL based on real PeerSpot user reviews.

Find out what your peers are saying about Apache, Cloudera, Amazon Web Services (AWS) and others in Hadoop.

To learn more, read our detailed Hadoop Report (Updated: January 2026).

Buyer's Guide

Hadoop

January 2026

Download the complete report

Helped 881,707 peers since 2012

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Categories and Ranking

IBM Analytics Engine

Ranking in Hadoop

8th

Average Rating

8.0

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Spark SQL

Ranking in Hadoop

5th

Average Rating

7.8

Reviews Sentiment

7.6

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Mindshare comparison

As of February 2026, in the Hadoop category, the mindshare of IBM Analytics Engine is 3.1%, up from 1.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Spark SQL is 6.1%, down from 10.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Hadoop Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
Spark SQL	6.1%
IBM Analytics Engine	3.1%
Other	90.8%

Hadoop

Featured Reviews

Saket Pandey

Product Manager at a hospitality company with 51-200 employees

Good solution for small and medium-sized businesses and highly stable

I would advise instead of only going through other reviews; it would be great if you could schedule a talk with the IBM team that would be helping you implement this solution. They would deep dive into the process and protocols you are currently set up in, and then they will provide you an optimal solution and optimal price. So I believe talking with the support team was really amazing. They even helped us in some other parts as well. It is a good solution for small and medium-sized businesses. Overall, I would rate the solution an eight out of ten because of the support team. They were able to resolve issues, which helped us deploy higher-grade solutions correctly and quickly. We were able to ensure that our processes were working correctly, and we saved about 15-16% of a week's time by using this solution. In terms of return on investment, we saved about $7,000 a month.

Read full review

Kemal Duman

Team Lead, Data Engineering at Nesine.com

Data pipelines have run faster and support flexible batch and streaming transformations

We do not have any performance problems, but we do have some resource problems. Spark SQL consumes so many resources that we migrated our streaming job from Spark to Apache Flink. Resource management in Spark SQL should be better. It consumes more resources, which is normal. The main reason we switched from Spark is memory and CPU consumption. The major reason is the resource problem because the number of streaming jobs has been increasing in our company. That is why we considered resource management as a priority. Because of the resource consumption, I would say the development of Spark SQL is better. For development purposes, it is a top product and not difficult to work with, but resources are the major problem. We changed to Flink regardless of development time. Development time is less in Spark compared with Flink.

Read full review

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Pros

"The best part was that we could make minor changes in the way we were bifurcating the data, even at a very small scale. The accuracy of conversion was also very high."

"Data validation and ease of use are the most valuable features."

"One of Spark SQL's most beautiful features is running parallel queries to go through enormous data."

"Certain data sets that are very large are very difficult to process with Pandas and Python libraries. Spark SQL has helped us a lot with that."

"Spark SQL's efficiency in managing distributed data and its simplicity in expressing complex operations make it an essential part of our data pipeline."

"Overall the solution is excellent."

"I find the Thrift connection valuable."

"The speed of getting data."

"The solution is easy to understand if you have basic knowledge of SQL commands."

More Spark SQL pros

Cons

"One area for improvement would be the initial setup stage, which took longer than expected."

"In terms of improvement, the only thing that could be enhanced is the stability aspect of Spark SQL."

"It takes a bit of time to get used to using this solution versus Pandas as it has a steep learning curve."

"SparkUI could have more advanced versions of the performance and the queries and all."

"This solution could be improved by adding monitoring and integration for the EMR."

"There are many inconsistencies in syntax for the different querying tasks."

"There should be better integration with other solutions."

"I've experienced some incompatibilities when using the Delta Lake format."

"Anything to improve the GUI would be helpful."

More Spark SQL cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available

"The solution is bundled with Palantir Foundry at no extra charge."

"We don't have to pay for licenses with this solution because we are working in a small market, and we rely on open-source because the budgets of projects are very small."

"There is no license or subscription for this solution."

"We use the open-source version, so we do not have direct support from Apache."

"The on-premise solution is quite expensive in terms of hardware, setting up the cluster, memory, hardware and resources. It depends on the use case, but in our case with a shared cluster which is quite large, it is quite expensive."

"The solution is open-sourced and free."

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Hadoop solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

881,707 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

No data available

Financial Services Firm

15%

University

15%

Retailer

12%

Healthcare Company

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

No data available

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	5
Midsize Enterprise	6
Large Enterprise	4

Comparisons

HPE Data Fabric vs IBM Analytics Engine

Compared 60% of the time

Amazon EMR vs IBM Analytics Engine

Compared 40% of the time

More IBM Analytics Engine Competitors

Apache Spark vs Spark SQL

Compared 30% of the time

HPE Data Fabric vs Spark SQL

Compared 15% of the time

IBM Db2 Big SQL vs Spark SQL

Compared 15% of the time

Amazon EMR vs Spark SQL

Compared 14% of the time

SAP HANA vs Spark SQL

Compared 14% of the time

More Spark SQL Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Hadoop

January 2026

Download IBM Analytics Engine product report

Buyer's Guide

Spark SQL

January 2026

Download Spark SQL product report

Overview

IBM Analytics Engine provides an architecture for Hadoop clusters that decouples the compute and storage tiers. Instead of a permanent cluster formed of dual-purpose nodes, the Analytics Engine allows users to store data in an object storage layer such as IBM Cloud Object Storage and spins up clusters of compute notes when needed. Separating compute from storage helps to transform the flexibility, scalability and maintainability of big data analytics platforms.

IBM

Spark SQL is a Spark module for structured data processing. Unlike the basic Spark RDD API, the interfaces provided by Spark SQL provide Spark with more information about the structure of both the data and the computation being performed. There are several ways to interact with Spark SQL including SQL and the Dataset API. When computing a result the same execution engine is used, independent of which API/language you are using to express the computation. This unification means that developers can easily switch back and forth between different APIs based on which provides the most natural way to express a given transformation.

Apache

Sample Customers

Information Not Available

UC Berkeley AMPLab, Amazon, Alibaba Taobao, Kenshoo, Hitachi Solutions

Find out what your peers are saying about Apache, Cloudera, Amazon Web Services (AWS) and others in Hadoop. Updated: January 2026.

DOWNLOAD NOW

881,707 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our list of best Hadoop vendors.

We monitor all Hadoop reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.